↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010583.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yao Cheng, Jie Xia, Mingliang Lai, Nansheng Cheng, Sirong He

Abstract

The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal. For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model. Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low. It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 28%
Student > Master 4 22%
Unspecified 3 17%
Researcher 2 11%
Librarian 2 11%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 72%
Unspecified 4 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#9,618,945
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,757
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,301
of 283,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#137
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.